This invention relates to alarm devices and more particularly, to those alarm devices in which an essential feature thereof is to engage and releasably hold the user.
False alarms are becoming an increasing problem in many suburban and urban areas. Each time a false alarm is answered by a fire alarm company, the equipment and men must be withdrawn from their headquarters and diverted to other areas of the community, thereby depriving the community of proper fire coverage. In addition, the high speeds at which fire companies must respond to alarms often endanger the lives of the fire company personnel as well as bystanders. Answering false alarms may, in other words, be measured in real terms of money lost and damaged lives and property. The increasing numbers of false alarms obviously places a greater demand upon fire companies, whether they be paid or volunteer.
Over the years, numerous attempts have been made to detain the user of a fire alarm box. The general idea of such devices is to lock and hold in place the person who sets off the fire alarm. Among those devices is that suggested by Hudgins (U.S. Pat. No. 48,204) in which the hand is passed into a box through a pair of manacles. Turning on the alarm closes the manacles about the wrist of the user, locking the user to the box until the fire department company releases him. A similar device has been suggested by Walsh (U.S. Pat. No. 545,141). Walsh adds a timing device which operates on the principle of an hourglass. When sand in a box runs out of the container, the manacles automatically open up.
Similar devices have been proposed by Hamer (U.S. Pat. No. 712,525); Janik (U.S. Pat. No. 1,155,578); Hutk (U.S. Pat. No. 1,288,901); and London (U.S. Pat. No. 2,121,206).
An interesting variation has been suggested by Zaomborsky (U.S. Pat. No. 2,301,989) in which the cuff is pivotally mounted to permit the user to remove his hand but not remove the cuff from attachment to the box. Another suggested device has been proposed by Seckendorf (U.S. Pat. No. 2,769,166) in which the individual is locked within a booth rather than to a fire alarm box.
Each of these aforementioned devices has a number of very serious defects which are believed to make their use undesirable, impractical, or uneconomical. Thus, the prior art devices require the initiation of the signal as a condition for locking the user to the box. There is no alternative to the user. An individual who places his hand in the proposed prior art devices and touches the signal initiating mechanism immediately finds himself restrained. A compulsive act followed by a change of mind is not excused by these prior art devices. A playful child or ignorant adult may become unnecessarily entangled.
In addition, there is neither an attempt to make the user aware that a cuff is about to enclose his hand nor is sufficient time given for him to remove his hand before sending the signal. Furthermore, more often than not the prior art devices do not provide means for automatically releasing the user. In this respect, the user must await the arrival of some member of the fire company to release the person sending the alarm.
In the instance of any and all false alarms being sent, it is a requirement of all the prior art devices that members of the fire company respond. No means are provided for separating alarm signals from a tampering signal. Finally, the aforementioned proposed systems are self-contained and are not adaptable to engage presently existing equipment.